[EM] Has this idea been considered?

[Jameson Quinn]

I agree that there are plenty of reasons, good and bad, for not signing on
to any given statement. My plea is simply that people consider the reasons
for signing it too. No joint statement will ever say exactly what each
inidividual signator would have said, but I for one am still willing to make
the effort.

As for the specific concerns - which systems, how many, etc - several of
those questions are touched on by the poll <http://betterpolls.com/do/1425>.

2011/7/8 Juho Laatu <juho4880 at yahoo.co.uk>

> There are many reasons why it is difficult to find a statement that
> numerous people on this list would be willing to sign. As you know there are
> probably as many different opinions on different methods as there are people
> on this list. There have been some related (inconclusive) discussions also
> earlier on this list.
>
> I'll write few comments below to outline some possible problems.
>
> 1. Commonly agreed to be better than approval.
>
>
> First I'd like to understand what is the target environment for the method.
> In the absence of any explanation I assume that we are looking for a general
> purpose method that could be used for many typical single-winner elections
> and other decision making in potentially competitive environments.
>
> Numerous people on this list may think that Condorcet methods are better.
> People may find also numerous other methods better than approval, but it may
> be more difficult to find many people with firm and similar opinions on
> them.
>
> 2. Commonly agreed to be simple for an average voter to feel that they
> understand what's going on.
>
>
> Different societies may have very different expectations here, depending on
> what they are used to. Maybe Condorcet voting (ranking) is considered simple
> enough. Maybe the voters need to understand only how to vote, not how to
> count the results.
>
> Some more reasons why people may have problems with signing the statement.
> - there is no statement yet
> - they don't understand or agree that these two targets would be the key
> targets (why just better than approval, what do the voters need to
> understand, what is simple)
> - they may think that there should be more targets or less targets
> - it might be easier to find an agreement on even smaller statements, one
> at a time
> - this proposal would not meet the needs of their own default target
> environment (maybe some specific society) (maybe their current method is
> already better)
> - they are afraid of making public statements that they might regret later
> - they don't want to take part in web campaigns in general (e.g.
> because their primary focus is in their academic or other career)
> - they are simply too uncertain and therefore stay silent
> - there might be one sentence in the statement that they don't like (or one
> method)
> - this initiative was not their own initiative
> - they have a personal agenda and this initiative does not directly support
> it (maybe some favourite method, or some particular campaign, maybe this
> initiative competes with their agenda)
> - technical arguments
>
> I hope you will find some agreements. But I'm not very hopeful if the
> target is to find an agreement of numerous persons on numerous questions.
> Maybe if the statement would be very simple. One approach would be to make a
> complete personal statement and then try to get some support to it (maybe
> with comments).
>
> Juho
>
>
>
> On 8.7.2011, at 19.47, Jameson Quinn wrote:
>
> I'm sorry, but aaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrrrgggggggghhhhhh.
>
> I think that people on this list are smart, but this is pathetic. I don't
> mean to be hard on Dave in particular. But why is it impossible to get any
> two of us to agree on anything? I want to make a list of systems which are
>
> 1. Commonly agreed to be better than approval.
> 2. Commonly agreed to be simple for an average voter to feel that they
> understand what's going on.
>
> I am not asking each person who responds to choose the best or simplest
> system according to them. I'm asking everyone to vote in the poll<http://betterpolls.com/do/1425> and
> approve (rate higher than 0) all systems which meet those two very low bars.
> Hopefully, the result will be a consensus. It will almost certainly not be
> the two best, simplest systems by any individual's personal reckoning.
>
> As to the specific comments:
>
> 2011/7/8 Dave Ketchum <davek at clarityconnect.com>
>
>> What I see:
>> .     Condorcet - without mixing in Approval.
>>
>
> You need some cycle-breaker. Implicit approval is the only order-N
> tiebreaker I know; fundamentally simpler than any order-N² tiebreaker like
> minimax. You don't have to call it approval if you don't like the name.
>
>
>> .     SODA - for trying, but seems too complex.
>>
>
> I disagree, but I'm biased. I feel that "approve any number of candidates
> or let your favorite candidate do it for you; most approvals wins" is easy
> to understand. But I can understand if people disagree, so I'm not
> criticizing this logic.
>
>
>> .     Reject Approval - too weak to compete.
>>
>
> Worse than plurality????????
>
> JQ
> ----
> Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
>
>
>
> ----
> Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20110708/4ccb66d3/attachment-0004.htm>